Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

Post by prox » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 4:43 PM UTC

skeledrew wrote: post #242

prox wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your perspective is a short arc. “Look what I can do now and look it made me way more productive.” I have no doubt it is true, you are on the up right now. However thinking of the long arc is important to, even though it has no consequence for you right now. AI is a force multiplayer and scarily dangerous in the wrong hands. We can already see by these discussions how uncertain things are. Just food for thought.

On the long arc is a better world: post-scarcity, accelerated advancement in important fields (such as medicine), and just general improvement in lifestyle for the greater global population. The primary scare is that the higher capabilities will be restricted to some small subset as most resources currently are today, but the increasing release of open models is helping to counteract that possibility.

Post by x313 » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC

GodelNumbering wrote: post #25

> "Finding 1: Scale Buys Evaluation, Not Control" The attached paper's ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.16009 ) title is "MEDLEY-BENCH: Scale Buys Evaluation but Not Control in AI Metacognition" This is the most blatant Claude line, or as Claude would put it, the smoking gun.

Post by vogelke » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

nz wrote: post #63

jagged-chisel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to address the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking like that. And a big contribution is “move fast.” No one has time to read, process, and think, because The Powers That Be (capital) want their results now.

With the exception of _one_ company that I worked at, pretty much every[0] company was a struggle between engineering and management. Engineering wants to get the software correct, and management wants to fire-hose features into the market. Most of the time (so more than half, at least), management tends to have a compulsion to mindlessly imitate what other companies/competitors are doing, usually without prioritizat…

Post by inigyou » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 5:09 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #92

nz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the exception of _one_ company that I worked at, pretty much every[0] company was a struggle between engineering and management. Engineering wants to get the software correct, and management wants to fire-hose features into the market. Most of the time (so more than half, at least), management tends to have a compulsion to mindlessly imitate what other companies/competitors are doing, usually without prioritizat…

> It very frequently feels like management is making strategic decisions after snorting a long line of social-media-psychosis and TED talks. It is remarkable that investors have any faith in such founders/entrepreneurs at all. My guess is the causality is usually * the managers are pursuing things because their investors (/government ministries) hinted it was the future after snorting a line of "TED talks" and "socia…

Post by dymk » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 5:14 PM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #131

dymk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a nice thought, but it’s probably not true as the AI becomes integrated into standard hiring tools

It’s true by virtue of any place relying on such tools having a high likelihood of turning into a horrible workplace due to the resulting hires.